2017-03-14 Letter to Takashi Ohno re SB 1201 SD 2 Relating to Technology

Home

Takashi Ohno March 14, 2017 Page 2 Among numerous concerns we have is that, if this or any other bill were to pass in present form, the County could not adequately protect against the overburdening of its equipment, which could cause interference with the County's existing equipment or system. In addition, coerced co-location could interfere with the County's existing and prospective contractual relations, as some County "structures" are on leased or licensed properties that do not allow collocation without a landowner's consent, and landowners may be hesitant to let the County have a structure on their properties if doing so will allow any and all small wireless facilities or small wireless facilities networks to be placed on their properties without their consent. Co-location raises security concerns, concerns about existing equipment being damaged by allowing private entities to do installation and other work on County sites, and concerns about increased use and wear-and-tear on existing structures, equipment, and access routes to rural sites. We do not believe any of the bills a) grant counties immunity for private entities accessing and using county property, b) allow the counties to recoup costs due to a small wireless facility or network's use of counties' utilities, or c) expressly allow counties to require companies that are accessing or using a county's property to assume liability for any damages to existing equipment or structures and to defend and indemnify a county for any such damages. If the final bill doesn't define "structure," it could be read to allow wireless equipment to be placed on any County owned or operated building. An earlier draft totally exempted wireless equipment from any County permits. It required the wireless companies to provide notice prior to installation to the DCCA but not to an affected county. It allowed utilities to reject applications but did not provide counties that authority and did not have any process for applications. It required wireless companies to comply with "applicable safety and engineering requirements", but that would be difficult for us to check with no prior notice or permitting process. Another draft seemed to limit collocation charges to $20 annually—a giveaway that does not seem to reflect proper stewardship of the public trust. Staff did some brief research and did not see other states giving away public land so freely. Washington State, for instance, has a schedule of fees and regulations in place that looks like a better balance protecting public land. At an absolute minimum, we would ask that any bill that passes provide that an entity proposing the installation, construction, development, or improvement of broadband networks must file a written request to do so with the State and affected County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Prov,dcr and Employer.